+

Social identity theory

Jette Hannibal Inthinking 2011

+
Self-concept
Cognitive Representation

Its a cognitive
representation of the self,
(individuals selfperception)

People categorize and

evaluate themselves based
on physical characteristics
and skills as well as social
categories (e.g. gender,
and ethnicity)

Jette Hannibal Inthinking 2011

Self-Esteem

based on evaluation of self

along a positive-negative
continuum (positive and
negative self-concept).

Turner (1982) self-categorization

theory

Turner distinguished between ones personal identity

and ones social identity.

Identity is the result of categorization for example,

gender, ethnicity, or nationality.

Personal Identity how we view

ourselves as an individual
Social Identity how we view
ourselves inside of a group

Jette Hannibal Inthinking 2011

Activity
Write quickly "I am..."
followed by categories
by which you define
your identity

+
Social identity

Jette Hannibal Inthinking 2011

+
Tajfel and Turner (1977)
Social Identity Theory
Social Categorization
Social categorization

In-group

Out-group
The more important and
meaningful the category
membership, the more it
forms the basis of an
individuals social identity.
Individuals strive for a positive
self-concept and therefore
also a positive social identity.

Jette Hannibal Inthinking 201

Social Comparison

Social comparison between

ones own group and other
groups (e.g. on status and
power) contributes to a
positive or negative social
identity.

Social comparison may

contribute to positive
distinctiveness (feeling better
than the out-groups) or the
opposite (negative
distinctiveness).

Discrimination can be seen as

a way of establishing positive
in-group distinctiveness.

Categorization and social

comparison

People are categorized based upon shared

characteristics. This determines our group
memberships.

Social comparison helps to obtain positive

distinctiveness of an in-group

Ingroup: group members are seen as individuals with

positive traits in-group favouritism

Outgroup: group members are seen as similar with

negative traits discrimination

Jette Hannibal Inthinking 2011

Tajfel (1970) minimal group

paradigm

Aim: To investigate if intergroup discrimination could take

place based on being randomly allocated to different
groups based on arbitrary categories.

Procedure: Two experiments with UK schoolboys who were

randomly placed in groups based on results of an initial
task. In the second experiment they were categorized
based on their artistic preferences. Then they were asked
to give small amounts of money to the other boys.

Results: The majority of the boys gave more money to boys

in their own group (in-group favouritism). In the second
experiment the boys also tried to maximize the difference
between the in-group and the out-group (discrimination)

Evaluation: The lab experiment suffers from artificiality and

demand characteristics. The theory is rather reductionist.

Jette Hannibal Inthinking 2011

+
Howarth (2002)

Aim: investigate how social representations of being from

Brixton affected the social identity of adolescent girls.

Procedure: Qualitative focus-group interview to investigate

social representations in the ingroup (people from Brixton).

Results: The girls from Brixton did not share the negative
representation of being from Brixton that people outside
the city held (stereotype/prejudice). People from Brixton had
a positive social identity, seeing themselves as diverse,
creative, and vibrant.

Evaluation: The study lends support to social identity theory

(positive social identity). The qualitative approach provides
in-depth understanding of the participants self-perception,
which could not have been obtained under experimental
conditions. The study has high ecological validity.

Jette Hannibal Inthinking 2011

+
Evaluation of sit

Jette Hannibal Inthinking 2011